EBA Engineering, Inc.

B-275818 Mar 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Composition of technical evaluation panel is within the discretion of the agency. Where protester has not shown actual bias on the part of particular evaluators there is no basis to question the composition of the panel. Allegation of "bait and switch" of proposed key personnel is denied where there is no evidence of misrepresentation by awardee. All but two are available or performing. Fixed-price proposal is reasonable is unobjectionable where it is based on a price analysis that includes comparison of direct and indirect rates with other offerors and other agency contracts for similar services. Source selection official's (SSO) decision to raise offeror's technical standing is unobjectionable since SSO is not bound by the recommendations and conclusions of working level evaluators and SSO's decision is reasonable. View Decision Matter of: EBA Engineering, Inc. File: B-275818 Date: March 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION EBA Engineering, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Soil and Land Use Technology, Inc. (SaLUT) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTFH61-96-R-00050, issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation, for laboratory support services. EBA contends that the evaluation was flawed and the award improper for a number of reasons including SaLUT's alleged use of bait and switch tactics and the failure of the source selection official (SSO) to follow the recommendations of the technical evaluation panel. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price, time and materials contract for a base period of 3 years with two 1-year options. The successful offeror supplies non-personal services for several laboratories and testing facilities at the FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia (hereinafter Research Center). The RFP identified 10 key personnel positions and 16 non-key categories. Offerors were required to identify and provide resumes for the key personnel, but were not required to identify non-key personnel. If an offeror intended to use subcontractors or consultants, it was required to submit a letter or other statement indicating that the consultant/subcontractor was willing to work on the contract. Offerors were not required to provide assurances or commitment statements for any other proposed personnel. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors of equal importance: technical, past performance, and price reasonableness/realism. Evaluation under the technical factor was based on three subfactors: relative experience (weight 40), relative qualifications of key personnel (weight 40), and relative understanding of the requirements and nature of the work (weight 20). Proposals were scored on a scale of 0 (unacceptable) to 5 (outstanding). The raw score on each subfactor was multiplied by the applicable weight resulting in a potential maximum score of 500 points. The RFP also required offerors to make an oral presentation to the agency which was not to be "evaluated per se, but [would be] used to evaluate the offerors knowledge of the work as an indication of capability." The evaluation of past performance was based on reference contacts and included an assessment of the offerors' reputation for quality, timeliness, cost control, and business relationships. Price was evaluated for reasonableness and realism through a price analysis. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was considered to represent the best value. While the three evaluation factors were of equal importance, the RFP advised that if competing offers were essentially equivalent in any of the three areas, the remaining areas would become more important. EBA, the incumbent contractor, and SaLUT were the only offerors to submit proposals by the August 2, 1996, closing date. The agency's technical evaluation panel, comprised of a chairman and three evaluators, reviewed the proposals and arrived at initial scores. The chairman also selected three contracts for each offeror for use in the past performance evaluation. After the offerors made their oral presentations on August 22 and 23, the agency conducted discussions and requested best and final offers (BAFO). With its BAFO, SaLUT included (for the purpose of criticizing as improper and inappropriate) a copy of a July 31, 1996, letter from a number of EBA employees addressed to the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR). The COTR was the chairman of the evaluation panel and the members of his panel were among those included in a list of additional letter recipients. [1] In the letter, the employees expressed concerns about the potential for a new contractor to be selected instead of EBA.